Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   In Finland in particular, it has been *officially* and *explicitly* stated
> > that deep-linking is legal and prohibiting it has no legal basis. Yet there
> > are tons of Finnish company websites out there with the prohibition in their
> > license agreement.

> But if you agree not to do it, you're violating other laws, like breach of 
> content. (Assuming that the click-through license agreement can be enforced.)

  I don't know how it is in the US, but at least here contracts cannot
forbid things which are explicitly stated as basic rights by law. If a
contract forbids such a thing, that part of the contract is invalid and
does not hold up in court. This even if you specifically agree and sign
the contract. A contract never surpasses the law, no matter how much you
"agree" with it.

  This fact causes a curious situation in particular with computer programs.
Finnish law explicitly states that creating backup copies of computer
programs is a basic right, and moreover it explicitly says that any part
of the program's license agreement which prohibits backupping is
non-enforceable.

  But then, what happens with computer programs with copy protection?
In other words, those which even if you try to copy them, won't work from
the copy. They are technically speaking breaking Finnish law by disallowing
a basic right. However, I have never heard this tested on court.

> That's another of those funky copyright questions: Who is doing the 
> "copying" if it's all 100% automated. If I post something to a newsgroup and 
> it gets distributed and google news picks it up and then you look at it, who 
> made "the copy"?

  Interpretation of the law on that regard is fuzzy here as well. Not even
the police (who are supposed to uphold the law) is completely sure how to
interpret it properly.

  For example the recent (much protested) internet censorship law here does
not, AFAIK, specifically give exemptions to search engines such as google.
However, when the question was brought up, the police interpreted that
google was not infringing the law (and they used hilariously inexact and
incorrect terminology for their decision).

  The new Finnish copyright law is even more mangled. Not even the people
who wrote it seem to fully understand it. Some high-ranked police official
even commented publicly that laws that cannot be unambiguously interpreted
and enforced make no sense.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message